During the despotic eras of Norman and Plantagenet England, the Crown declared one third of the land area of Southern England to be the royal forest, the exclusive preserve of the monarch, his forestry officials and his favored aristocrats. The people of Britain were forbidden access to and enjoyment of these forests under harsh penalties. This exclusionary system became so despised by the people that in 1215, five clauses of the Magna Carta were devoted to redress of grievances that are hauntingly similar to those that are now flooding my office.

The Royal Forests

House Chamber, Washington, D.C. January 7, 2011.

M. Speaker:

Much of my district comprises forests managed by the U.S. Forest Service. Over the last two years, I have received a growing volume of complaints protesting the increasingly exclusionary and elitist policies of this agency.

These complaints charge the Forest Service, among other things, with:

 Imposing inflated fees that are forcing the abandonment of family cabins held for generations;

 Charging exorbitant new fees that are closing down long-established community events upon which many small and struggling mountain towns depend for tourism;

 Expelling long-standing grazing operations on specious grounds  causing damage both to the local economy and the federal governments revenues; and

 Obstructing the sound management of our forests through a policy that can only be described as benign neglect, creating both severe fire dangers and massive unemployment.

Practiced in the marketplace, we would renounce these tactics as predatory and abusive. In the public service sector, they are intolerable.

Combined, these actions evince an ideologically driven hostility to the publics enjoyment of the publics land  and a clear intention to deny the public the responsible and sustainable use of that land.

Most recently, the Forest Service has placed severe restrictions on vehicle access to the Plumas National Forest, despite volumes of public protests. Supervisor Bill Connelly, Chairman of the Butte County Board of Supervisors writes that The restriction applies to such activities as: collecting firewood, retrieving game, loading or unloading horses or other livestock, and camping. He writes, The National Forests are part of the local fabric. The roads within the National Forests are used by thousands of residents and visitors for transportation and recreation. These activities generate revenue for our rural communities, which are critical for their survival.

This is not a small matter. The Forest Service now controls 193 million acres within our nation  a land area equivalent to the size of Texas.

During the despotic eras of Norman and Plantagenet England, the Crown declared one third of the land area of Southern England to be the royal forest, the exclusive preserve of the monarch, his forestry officials and his favored aristocrats. The people of Britain were forbidden access to and enjoyment of these forests under harsh penalties. This exclusionary system became so despised by the people that in 1215, five clauses of the Magna Carta were devoted to redress of grievances that are hauntingly similar to those that are now flooding my office.

Mr. Speaker, the attitude that now permeates the U.S. Forest Service from top to bottom is becoming far more reminiscent of the management of the royal forests during the autocracy of King John than of an agency that is supposed to encourage, welcome, facilitate and maximize the publics use of the publics land in a nation of free men and women.

After all, that was the vision for the Forest Service set forth by its legendary founder, Gifford Pinchot in 1905: "to provide the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people in the long run."

In May of 2009 and April of 2010, some of my California colleagues and I sent letters to the Forest Service expressing these concerns. I have also personally met with senior officials of that agency on several occasions in which I have referenced more than 500 specific complaints of Forest Service abuses received by my office.

All that I have received to date from these officials are smarmy assurances that they will address these concerns  assurances that their own actions have belied at every turn.

It is time for Congress to conduct a top-to-bottom review of the abuses by this increasingly unaccountable and elitist agency, to demand accountability for the damage it has done  and is doing  to our forests health, to the publics trust, to the governments revenues and to the nations economy  and to take whatever actions are necessary to restore an attitude of consumer-friendly public service which was Gifford Pinchots original vision and for which the U.S. Forest Service was once renowned and respected.

U.S. property owners own nothing. They rent their property from the Federal Government. Stop paying taxes/rent, and you're evicted. It's merely a matter of time before our masters dispense with the pretentions and sieze the property and evict the peasants whenever they feel like it.

Remember that elderly woman who died when she learned that her house--a house built by her grandparents and in which she, her parents, and her grandparents had lived all their lives--was not hers, and she was evicted and the house destroyed because it was in "the public viewshed"--and apparently this offended some of the "Liberals" and their love of "the environment"?

“We The People did not grant any power whatsoever to the US Forest Service. IMO, the entire administrative state is illegal.”

Quite so. The eco-fascist pigs at Isle Royale National Park in Lake Superior tried to ban recreation boaters from the park. The boaters took up a collection, spent $600,000 and got their (the American People’s) island back from these Nazi pigs.

The one good thing is that the Marxist park superintendent died at the end. Since then, the eco-fascists have been keeping their heads down.

The Isle Royale incident is a classical example of how to fight these federal fascist pigs.

Now if Congress had any guts back then, the entire park service on that island should have been arrested, found guilty and thrown in prison.

Savage Beast wrote: Remember that elderly woman who died when she learned that her house—a house built by her grandparents and in which she, her parents, and her grandparents had lived all their lives—was not hers, and she was evicted and the house destroyed because it was in “the public viewshed”—and apparently this offended some of the “Liberals” and their love of “the environment”?

Until the reign of the Viking, Cnut, in the early 11th century, freemen could hunt anywhere, restricted only by the exclusive right to hunt associated with land ownership (”ratione soli”.) During the reign of Cnut, the king withdrew certain lands from free common access and reserved them for his own use, maintaining them primarily for exclusive royal hunting purposes or “chases.” Hunting in the Forest provided a substantial share of meat, nuts berries and wild edibles for the king, the nobility and their retainers.

In later reigns, it became a practice for kings to “forest” occupied areas. By virtue of “sovereign ownership” of all land, kings claimed the right to assert exclusive hunting privileges. Essentially, these were severed as a separate estate in the land and retained or granted severally. At one time, it has been estimated that almost one-third of the country had been converted into “royal forest.” by royal proclamation. Regulation of the hunting of game rested upon the theory of the Crown’s “sovereign ownership” of land and resources associated with it.

The Latin term “foris” actually referred to exclusion from the application of the ordinary law and not to a wooded land. A separate system of “Forest Laws” and enforcement mechanisms were introduced by the Normans, which set forth permitted use and dealt savagely with violators. English common law, equity and associated rights did not apply to crimes committed in relation to “forested” lands.

The Forest Charter under the Magna Carta codified Forest Law and set up a commission directed to make “perambulations” of the royal forest and to review forest extensions declared by Henry II, Richard and John, retaining only those that were legitimately within the king’s own demesne (personal properties.) When Henry came of age he forced a revision of the boundaries in his favor. These remained essentially the same until 1300, when Edward I was forced to deforest large tracts.

The Forest Charter designated the courts to enforce Forest Law. Local forest courts met every six weeks. Special forest inquisitions were held to deal with serious trespass with the royal forest eyre (circuit court) retaining ultimate jurisdiction. The local courts dealt with minor offenses to the “vert” - the greenwood of the forest: cutting; clearing; gathering dead wood, honey and nuts; allowing cattle to graze or pigs to feed on acorns or beechnuts. When a graver offense to the vert or a crime against the “venison,” (the right to hunt deer,) was committed, a special court was called to hear the case before the forest officers. The offender was either sent to prison until the next eyre or “attached” by other’s pledges to appear before it. Any evidence - arrows, antlers, skins, poachers’ greyhounds -was delivered to the forest officials to be produced before the justices.

Every seven years the forest eyre, made up of four barons and knights appointed by the king, traveled from county to county hearing the accumulated forest cases. Trespassers were brought from prison or produced by the sheriff. The foresters and other officers produced the record of special inquisition and the evidence. These were usually accepted as fact without further hearing and sentence was pronounced - usually a year and a day against the payment of ransom or fine. If the offender was poor, he was sometimes pardoned or if he had already spent a great deal of time in jail waiting, he was released. If he failed to appear, he was outlawed.

Every three years an inspection of the forests was made by a body of 12 knights, the “regarders” who were supposed to report any encroachments on the king’s demesne - the erection of a mill, fishpond, enlargement of a clearing, enclosure of land without a license, or any abuse of the right to cut wood.

The hierarchy of officials that admisistered the forest was headed by a justice who directed the whole forest administration of England. Next in authority were the wardens, also called stewards, then Baliffs or chief foresters, who had custody of single forests or groups of forests. Below them were officers called verderers, knights or landed gentry nominally in charge of the vert but actually performing a variety of duties. There were also foresters who acted as gamekeepers, responsible to the wardens and appointed by them. Usually, each forest also had four agisters appointed by the wardens to collect money for the pasturing during certain seasons of cattle and pigs in the king’s demesne forests. The agisters counted pigs as they entered the forest and collected the pennies as they came out. Landowners inside the forest also employed woodwards, their own foresters.

Many barons set up private forests or “chases” in wooded areas not set aside by Forest Law or through grants from the king of “vert and venison.” In the rein of Edward I, the royal forest of Dean contained the private chases of 36 landowners, mostly great magnates of the area.

Once the king granted a forest to a private baron, royal Forest Law did not apply and jurisdiction was surrendered to the baron who owned the chase. Under manorial law, the baron’s foresters could arrest trespassers against the venison, but only if they were caught by the manor in the act and with evidence. Then they were imprisoned until they paid a fine to the lord.

Sometimes districts were enclosed with palings or ditches and became private parks. The baron who created the park was obliged to keep it effectively enclosed so that the king’s beasts could not enter. At the time of Henry III, no license for park creation was necessary as long as it did not infringe upon royal forest. Later, a license was required. Some barons installed deer leaps which allowed deer in, but not out. Many of these were ordered removed and certain parks were ruled a legal “nuisance” when close to the king’s forest.

Vension could be taken as an exception to the forest law by an earl or baron for his party travelling through the royal forest. This had to be done in the presence of a forester or while blowing a hunting horn. The taking was recorded in the rolls of the special forest inquisitions as “Vension taken without warrant.” The specifc taking of deer could also be granted by the king, recorded as “venison given by the lord king.”

Forest officers were a hated class and local sympathies were often with the poachers. Usually the sons of knights or freeholders, foresters often abused their powers for gain - felling trees, killing deer, grazing their own cattle, embezzling, taking bribes, extorting stock or crops from the people (including nobles) at harvest. (Reference: E.F. Lincoln’s The Medieval Legacy, London, Macgibbon & Kee; c1961.)

Around our family cabin in Colorado, the USFS has spent the last 10 years closing road after road until there is only one road into the valley, and one road out. Last summer they closed that one by not clearing off a small rockslide on the only other road out of the valley.

Since they've not allowed logging, and the area was heavily logged in the 40-50âs, they've basically created a fire trap. The area has been mined extensively since the 1890s so it's not like they are preserving pristine forest or anything..

Our cabin is located in a town site that has been privately held since it was claimed in the 1870's, so they can't push us off that way, but I am sure they wouldn't mind a rip-roaring forest fire that burned the town down.

If by chance there is a forest fire and you should be observed doing anything to impede the natural burn areas you can expect to charged with interference of the Fire Control Boss. That means no backfire burning, no dozer clearing work after the fire is started, etc.

29
posted on 01/07/2011 6:42:14 PM PST
by B4Ranch
(Do NOT remain seated until this ride comes to a full and complete stop! We're going the wrong way!)

Yes, it does my heart good to see this and also to listen to the new chairman of the "Resources Committee" named "Doc" somethingorother on Hew Hewitt, today!

It sounded like he too, was "pickin up what I've been layin down" over the past 20 years!

Gratifying to hear ANY Congressperson preach the gospel according to the Waspman after seemingly squandering 5 of the best years of my life trying to turn back the tide of GANG-GREEN GovernMental EnvironMental Commonism that wishes to herd us all off our personal domains in the west!!!

None of 'em are ever up to any danged good!!!

33
posted on 01/07/2011 10:19:26 PM PST
by SierraWasp
(A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish man's heart to the left. (Eccl 10:2))

P.S. That new chairman really stressed the need to restore "multiple use" and "greater access", including even commercial access for wise resorce extraction for the benefit or our nation's growing needs. For example, he pointed out how we have some of the largest deposits of uranium, yet we import it for our national defense and that's insanely stupid!!!

I would add that we need to restore Multiple Use Reservoirs like the one that was two thirds complete at Auburn, CA that would have been ideal for the regulation of water levels in Folsom reservoir, one on the most heavily used state recreation ares that keeps running out of water, or must dump winter flows out to sea each winter. Talk about a monument to stupidity!!!

34
posted on 01/07/2011 10:30:04 PM PST
by SierraWasp
(A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish man's heart to the left. (Eccl 10:2))

The mass media is controlled and dominated by people who have something like a mass psychosis. Reality is beyond their comprehension and is repugnant to them. They are under the illusion that they are doing something benevolent, whereas it's the opposite.

They assume (if they think this deeply at all) that they are leading the public, whereas they are misleading the public.

The best thing they could do is inform the public truthfully and let the people themselves decided what to do about it, but truth for its own sake is foreign to their thinking.

Truth has become incomprehensive and repugnant to them.

Fortunately we have alternative sources of information--the internet, Rush, Fox News, etc.--but I don't see how we can wrest the mass media away from these dangerous people or to enlighten them about how wrong and dangerous they are and how dangerously they are misleading the public.

And all of this assumes basic benevolence. There are some in the mass media who intend to mislead the public for selfish and/or malevolent purposes.

"the Crown declared one third of the land area of Southern England to be the royal forest, the exclusive preserve of the monarch, his forestry officials and his favored aristocrats."

You can expect no more sympathy toward ordinary people (that's you and I) and the public interest from the neo-aristocrats in Washington and their forestry officials than the English peasantry got from "the Crown" and its "favored aristocrats".

I've dealt with these people.

They delight in their predatory power over the peasantry!

They get a sadistic thrill from the grasp of power and lording it over other people!

Their supporters take vicarious delight in their predatory powers. They imagine themselves wielding such power!

Could there be anything more predatory, greedy, or sadistically delighting in power than Nancy Pelosi demanding a larger jet--cruising extended family and friends around in it--demanding a more lavish and expensive office suite--vacationing in Hawaii at $10,000-a-night?

"the Crown declared one third of the land area of Southern England to be the royal forest, the exclusive preserve of the monarch, his forestry officials and his favored aristocrats."

You can expect no more sympathy toward ordinary people (that's you and I) and the public interest from the neo-aristocrats in Washington and their forestry officials than the English peasantry got from "the Crown" and its "favored aristocrats".

I've dealt with these people.

They delight in their predatory power over the peasantry!

They get a sadistic thrill from the grasp of power and lording it over other people!

Their supporters take vicarious delight in their predatory powers. They imagine themselves wielding such power!

Could there be anything more predatory, greedy, or sadistically delighting in power than Nancy Pelosi demanding a larger jet--cruising extended family and friends around in it--demanding a more lavish and expensive office suite--vacationing in Hawaii at $10,000-a-night?

I suspect it would be Illuminating to discover why, in limiting the damage to "benign neglect," Tom sidesteps speaking of the evidence that reveals an offensive. (Like the one you laid in his lap and in the laps of his aides).

But who would believe a report back that runs in opposition to expectations and hopes? A report that crushes the hopes of many conservatives would be met in what manner?What is your plan for when that "greets" you?

Savage Beast wrote: “Step number one is to re-capture the mass media.” Yes. But how?

- - -

Fair question, sir. I don’t profess to have a truly cogent plan worked out, but you have induced me to put some thoughts down “on paper” so to speak.

[1] What should the goal be?
IMO, the target audience must be American youth. They are the future and they are, by defintion, at an impressionable stage of their intellectual lives and possess the added advantage of not having already been terminally coopted by leftist indoctrination. When I speak of “American youth”, I am referring to those of all races, ethnic backgrounds, and sexes and degrees of innate intelligence.

[2] What should the medium be?
Forget the old regime TV broadcast media, which is in the death grip of leftist management, offers no real attraction for the intended young target audience, and in any case is demonstrably on a steady course toward cultural and popular irrelevance. My media of choice would be radio, the internet, indie film, and the street.
-> radio doing current cutting-edge music and sports talk music stations managed by hip young fast-moving conservatives and hosted by clever comically-oriented individuals of similar cultural mindset able to humorously lampoon the left and draw a hip audience while doing so. Put this radio programming on the web, reinforced by blogs and social networking sites. Fund the development of an indie film industry with an underlying themeof ridiculing and exposing the Left (what fertile ground lies there!); put the films on the web and put the producton the web; that will short-circuit the control of Leftwing Hollywood over national film distribution. $upport and develop young performing artists, comedians, singers, groups, street-dance teams who deliver a conservative vibe as well as a network of clubs and venues around the nation to host them. Advertise them on the web and those radio stations we just invested in. Create youth movements (as opposed to “organizations”). Stage street theater. Make it COOL to be conservative.

[3] What is the message?
Put a copy of Saul Alinsky’s book under your pillow. Attack through ridicule. Keep it simple and elemental. Tailor and direct the message toward what it important among the young. Explain to them the freedoms that are being taken away by the Left, what it will cost the young in the future, how old-fashioned and out of touch the Left is. Ask why they would let ANYONE try to dictate how they should think. Press their buttons. DON’T LECTURE. DON’T WHINE. Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule, attack, attack, attack.

[4] Operational guidelines -
Manage the process nationally. Make the offensive wide-ranging and fast-moving. Constantly shift focus upon different targets in an unpredictable fashion; don’t give the Left an opportunity to develop any retaliatory traction (i.e. - make it old news before the Left can marshal a response). Do not engage or debate the Left directly (they just lie and misrepresent). Don’t play defense against their attacks. Just keep ridiculing them, belittling them, highlighting their manifol hypocrisies, eroding their image of credibility.

If carried out with sufficient vigor, persistence, dedication and funding, this will work. It won’t work right away, but it will work over time. And it may save the nation.

Savage Beast wrote: “Step number one is to re-capture the mass media.” Yes. But how?

- - -

Fair question, sir. I don’t profess to have a truly cogent plan worked out, but you have induced me to put some thoughts down “on paper” so to speak.

[1] What should the goal be?
IMO, the target audience must be American youth. They are the future and they are, by defintion, at an impressionable stage of their intellectual lives and possess the added advantage of not having already been terminally coopted by leftist indoctrination. When I speak of “American youth”, I am referring to those of all races, ethnic backgrounds, and sexes and degrees of innate intelligence.

[2] What should the medium be?
Forget the old regime TV broadcast media, which is in the death grip of leftist management, offers no real attraction for the intended young target audience, and in any case is demonstrably on a steady course toward cultural and popular irrelevance. My media of choice would be radio, the internet, indie film, and the street.
-> radio doing current cutting-edge music and sports talk music stations managed by hip young fast-moving conservatives and hosted by clever comically-oriented individuals of similar cultural mindset able to humorously lampoon the left and draw a hip audience while doing so. Put this radio programming on the web, reinforced by blogs and social networking sites. Fund the development of an indie film industry with an underlying themeof ridiculing and exposing the Left (what fertile ground lies there!); put the films on the web and put the producton the web; that will short-circuit the control of Leftwing Hollywood over national film distribution. $upport and develop young performing artists, comedians, singers, groups, street-dance teams who deliver a conservative vibe as well as a network of clubs and venues around the nation to host them. Advertise them on the web and those radio stations we just invested in. Create youth movements (as opposed to “organizations”). Stage street theater. Make it COOL to be conservative.

[3] What is the message?
Put a copy of Saul Alinsky’s book under your pillow. Attack through ridicule. Keep it simple and elemental. Tailor and direct the message toward what it important among the young. Explain to them the freedoms that are being taken away by the Left, what it will cost the young in the future, how old-fashioned and out of touch the Left is. Ask why they would let ANYONE try to dictate how they should think. Press their buttons. DON’T LECTURE. DON’T WHINE. Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule, attack, attack, attack.

[4] Operational guidelines -
Manage the process nationally. Make the offensive wide-ranging and fast-moving. Constantly shift focus upon different targets in an unpredictable fashion; don’t give the Left an opportunity to develop any retaliatory traction (i.e. - make it old news before the Left can marshal a response). Do not engage or debate the Left directly (they just lie and misrepresent). Don’t play defense against their attacks. Just keep ridiculing them, belittling them, highlighting their manifol hypocrisies, eroding their image of credibility.

If carried out with sufficient vigor, persistence, dedication and funding, this will work. It won’t work right away, but it will work over time. And it may save the nation.

Most people just study American history to learn about our past. There is a whole English, Germanic and Roman legal heritage that has so much bearing on our world view and traditions, particularly as regards property.

Conservatism is a tough sell to the young, especially through new media. But liberty need not be. Get the kids to appreciate freedom, and to resent those who try to take it away from them, and they'll be intensely motivated.

Unfortunately, the Democrats are well aware of this, and have been very successful in using Republican policies and rhetoric to paint themselves as the party that cares more about freedom. The Republican line of attack must be that Democrats are puppetmasters and thieves, interested only in controlling the individual and milking him like a cow. Wonderful advertisements could be made using nothing but the Denocrats' own words - bu the RNC apparently considers that rude and uncivil. :)

48
posted on 01/12/2011 6:08:52 AM PST
by Mr. Jeeves
( "The right to offend is far more important than any right not to be offended." - Rowan Atkinson)

Thanks to Susan (...writing from an undisclosed location, in the general vicintity of Toronto)

Teaching Math1.Teaching Math In 1970A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100..His cost of production is 4/5 of the price.What is his profit?

2.Teaching Math In 1980A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100.His cost of production is 80% of the price.What is his profit?

3.Teaching Math In 1990A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100.His cost of production is £80.How much was his profit?4.Teaching Math In 2000A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100.His cost of production is £80 and his profit is £20.Your assignment: Underline the number 20.

5.Teaching Math In 2005A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands.

Your assignment: Discuss how the birds and squirrels might feel as the logger cut down their homes just for a measly profit of £20.

6.Teaching Math In 2009A logger is arrested for trying to cut down a tree in case it may beoffensive to Muslims or other religious groups not consulted in thefelling licence. He is also fined a £100 as his chainsaw is in breach of Health and Safety legislation as it deemed too dangerous and could cut something.. He has used the chainsaw for over 20 years without incident however he does not have the correct certificate of competence and is therefore considered to be a recidivist and habitual criminal. His DNA is sampled and his details circulated throughout all government agencies. He protests and is taken to court and fined another £100 because he is such an easy target.

When he is released he returns to find Gypsies have cut down half his wood to build a camp on his land. He tries to throw them off but is arrested, prosecuted for harassing an ethnic minority, imprisoned and fined a further £100. While he is in jail again the Gypsies cut down the rest of his wood and sell it on the black market for £100 cash. They also have a departure BBQ of squirrel and pheasant and leave behind several tonnes of rubbish and asbestos sheeting.

The forester on release is warned that failure to clear the fly tipped rubbish immediately at his own cost is an offence. He complains and is arrested for environmental pollution, breach of the peace and invoiced £12,000 plus VAT for safe disposal costs by regulated government contractor.

Your assignment: How many times is the logger going to have to bearrested and fined before he realises that he is never going to make £20profit by hard work, give up, sign onto the dole and live off the statefor the rest of his life?

7.Teaching Math In 2010A logger doesnt sell a lorry load of timber because he cant get aloan to buy a new lorry because his bank has spent all his and their money on a derivative of securitised debt related to sub- prime mortgages in Alabama and lost the lot with only some government money left to pay a few million pound bonuses to their senior directors and the traders who made the biggest losses.

The logger struggles to pay the £1,200 road tax on his old lorryhowever, as it was built in the 1970s it no longer meets the emissionsregulations and he i forced to scrap it.

Some Bulgarian loggers buy the lorry from the scrap merchant and putit back on the road. They undercut everyone on price for haulage and send their cash back home, while claiming unemployment for themselves and their relatives. If questioned they speak no English and it is easier to deport them at the governments expense.

Following their holiday back home they return to the UK with different names and fresh girls and start again. The logger protests, is accused of being a bigoted racist and as his name is on the side of his old lorry he is forced to pay £1,500 registration fees as a gang master.

The Government borrows more money to pay more to the bankers asbonuses are not cheap. The parliamentarians feel they are missing out and claim the difference on expenses and allowances.You do the math.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.